–Nine-member bench adjourns case till Oct 8, directs additional attorney general to submit reply before next hearing
ISLAMABAD: A nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of Justice Faez Isa’s plea against presidential reference till Oct 8 and directed to Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman to submit a response on the judge’s appeal preferably within one week.
It also issued notices to other respondents, including Prime Minister Imran Khan and President Arif Alvi and the Supreme Judicial Council, Federal Minister for Law and Justice Barrister Farogh Naseem and Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan.
As it took up the case, the bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, noted that all petitioners, including Justice Isa, had “attacked” the presidential reference on the ground of ‘mala fide of facts’ and law based on principle laid in former CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s case.
“It’s a case of anxiety not only for the bar but also bench as well. We have to act in accordance with the law and Constitution,” Justice Bandial observed during the hearing. “This is a very important case and we have no intent to linger on the matter.”
The bench also noted that it can examine Article 211 wherein SJC proceeding cannot be challenged in the court of law while it will also consider whether the president or premier can become party under Article 248 of the constitution.
Justice Bandial pointed out that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah — who is a member of the bench — could not attend the proceedings as he was on leave. He also noted that Justice Isa’s lawyer Muneer A. Malik was ill and had submitted a request in the court to adjourn the hearing earlier. The request was declined.
In August, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) challenged the references filed against SC judge contending that the references are motivated by the judge’s verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case.
The constitutional petition was filed by SCBA through its president, Amanullah Kanrani, and the respondents are the SJC, the president of Pakistan (through the principal secretary to the president), and the federation of Pakistan (through the secretary of law and justice division).
The petitioner contends that the references against Justice Isa “while cloaked in pious proclamations of accountability – are actually rooted in mala fide of fact and law.”
The hearing of the case has been adjourned till October 8.
Earlier, Justice Isa had objected to a seven-member bench hearing the reference and had filed a petition requesting the formation of a new, full bench along with an expedient hearing to address his petition.
During the hearing of the petition, the counsel representing Justice Isa, Muneer A. Malik, had contended that the judges on the bench who might possibly benefit from the dismissal of this petition should kindly recuse themselves from the proceedings, in addition to three senior judges who were members of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Two judges of the seven-member bench — Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan — subsequently recused themselves from hearing the case.
The petitioner judge had objected to the presence of Justice Masood and Justice Ahsan since if he (Justice Isa) was impeached by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Justice Masood would be elevated to the position of chief justice for six months till March 10, 2024, otherwise, he would reach superannuation as judge. Similarly, in this scenario, Justice Ahsan would become the chief justice in March 2024 instead of Oct 25, 2024.
A reference had been instituted in May this year against Justice Isa, accusing the judge of concealing his properties in the United Kingdom allegedly held in the name of his wife and children. After news of the reference hit TV screens, the judge wrote multiple letters to President Arif Alvi, asking him to confirm whether the reports were true.
Subsequently, another reference was filed by a lawyer from Lahore over the judge’s act of writing to and seeking information from the president, accusing him of violating the code of conduct for judges.
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), however, quashed the second reference as it did not find the matter “serious or grave enough to constitute misconduct sufficient for his [Justice Isa’s] removal from the exalted office of a judge of the Supreme Court”.
